Cost-effectiveness of glass hybrids as restorative alternative proved for cervical lesions
BERLIN, Germany: A four-country randomised controlled clinical trial recently proved the clinical performance and superior cost-effectiveness of glass hybrids compared with composites in Class II restorations. Researchers from Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, led by Prof. Falk Schwendicke, have now proved in another randomised controlled clinical trial that glass hybrids show similar performance to composites in non-carious cervical lesions.
The phasing down of dental amalgam means that it is necessary to identify a suitable restorative alternative that is not only cost-effective and clinically proven but also easy to use, including for bulk filling, and not technique-sensitive.
The cluster-randomised trial compared survival, restoration quality and cost of a glass hybrid restoration (EQUIA Forte, GC) and a resin composite restoration (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M) for sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions. The study involved 88 patients with a total of 175 restorations. Of those, 83 were glass hybrid restorations and 92 were resin composite restorations. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to the sample characteristics. Restorations were placed without mechanical cavity preparation and evaluated at one, 18 and 36 months using FDI World Dental Federation criteria. Costs were estimated from a payer’s perspective in Germany, using time recordings, hourly costs and follow-up costs based on statutory insurance fee item catalogues.
“Glass hybrids are, by default, less technique-sensitive and can, in this way, be seen as more like amalgam” – Prof. Falk Schwendicke, Charité
The researchers concluded: “Within this trial, survival was not significantly different between [glass hybrid] and [resin composite] […] As [glass hybrid] was significantly less costly both initially and long-term than [resin composite], using [resin composite] was only cost-effective for payers willing to invest high additional expenses per minimal survival gains.”
Commenting on the previous four-country multicentre study, Schwendicke told Dental Tribune International in May: “Glass hybrids are, by default, less technique-sensitive and can, in this way, be seen as more like amalgam.” He added that glass hybrids are a good alternative to composites. “I am very happy that there is a choice of materials that dentists can use when amalgam is no longer available,” he said.
The study, titled “Glass hybrid versus composite for non-carious cervical lesions: Survival, restoration quality and costs in randomized controlled trial after 3 years”, was published in the July 2021 issue of the Journal of Dentistry.